On Point: 40. TPRs

Marquette Department of Human Services v. B.L.J.,  2026AP400-402, 5/7/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another decision applying the deferential standard of review to a TPR dispositional order, COA rejects the appellant’s arguments which ignore that standard of review.

Brown County Health &Human Services v. J.L., 2026AP176, 5/1/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Julie” challenges the circuit court’s exercise of discretion at disposition as to two factors of consideration. However, the deferential standard of review applicable to dispositional decisions results in affirmance.

Monroe County Department of Human Services v. A.S., 2026AP65-66, 4/23/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although A.S. raises multiple challenges to this TPR, COA uniformly finds her arguments unavailing.

State v. D.H., 2025AP2668, 4/10/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Potentially reviving an issue many may have thought already settled, COA upholds the circuit court’s order for plea withdrawal in a case involving a deficient colloquy regarding the dispositional burden of proof in a TPR case.

State v. V.T., 2025AP1338-40, 3/23/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

In an interesting ineffectiveness appeal, COA confronts clear-cut deficient performance but declines V.T.’s invitation to depart from the Strickland prejudice standard.

State v. B.A.J., 2025AP1476-77, 4/2/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case that demonstrates the high burden that parents must satisfy to withdraw their pleas, COA affirms despite also acknowledging the “questionable” nature of this mentally ill parent’s plea.

Sawyer County Health & Human Services v. D.K., 2025AP2832, 3/12/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the order terminating “Daniel’s” parental rights after summary judgment was granted at the grounds phase because genuine issues of material fact exist whether the County made reasonable efforts to provide services.

Jefferson County DHS v. G.J.J., 2025AP2491, 3/5/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

While G.J.J. gets closer than most–and his arguments even give COA “pause”–ultimately, the deferential standard of review applicable to dispositional decisions results in affirmance.

J.R.P. v. W.P.M., 2024AP1535, 2/19/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a rare sufficiency challenge pursued by the petitioner, COA applies a deferential standard of review and affirms.

State v. L.Z., 2025AP2731-32, 2/17/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although L.Z. tries to capitalize on certain statements in the court’s oral ruling as giving a foothold for her appellate challenge, the standard of review means the argument attacking a discretionary decision goes nowhere.